- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:23:24 -0700
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@google.com>, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
>>> Mark Pilgrim:
>>>> What about setVersion() with no arguments? I ask because WebKit
>>>> currently treats it like setVersion("undefined") and I'm in the
>>>> process of fixing it in about 19 places.
>>>
>>> That’s the right behaviour.
>>
>> Huh?? At least in the Gecko DOM implementation we always throw an
>> exception if too few parameters are defined. Only if parameters are
>> explicitly marked as [optional] are you allowed to not include them. I
>> was under the impression that this was the case in most DOM
>> implementations, with notable exception of webkit.
>
> WebKit is looser in this regard. We probably should change the
> default for new IDL, but it's a delicate task and I've been busy. :(
This is why it surprises me of WebIDL specifies WebKit behavior as the
compliant behavior as Cameron seems to indicate.
/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 12 June 2011 18:24:25 UTC